Do Catholics cherry-pick/read-meaning-into Scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Upgrade25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Upgrade25

Guest
I was watching a nondenominational apologetics outreach to Muslims to quench that doubt(Islam), then they pointed out that some Muslims take the verses they like and ignore the violent ones in the Koran.

For some reason, my mind told me that Catholics do this too. Such as the bit about justification, or one mediator, or creation, or any other countless examples of such things.

May you help?
 
I would argue that Catholics do the complete opposite. You find it very common in protestant denominations where they take one notion, or one line and use it to support their theology. Catholics on the other hand develop their theology based on an understanding of the entirety of scripture from the Old to the New Testament in conjunction with the Oral Tradition handed on by the Apostles through the magisterium. While we may use a single scripture to back up a thought process or to discuss some meaning here or there, that scripture can only be understand by taking all of Scripture and not just that one pericope/verse/quote.

The very fact that we don’t say things like “once saved, always saved”, “Scripture Alone,” “All you have to do is confess with your lips,” all of those require taking one section and ignoring another. We instead truly have a view of all of scripture as one cohesive whole… one verse cannot be understood without another. “saved by grace” for instance cannot be understood without James 2:24 that says faith without works is dead, etc.
 
bmullins said:
I would argue that Catholics do the complete opposite. You find it very common in protestant denominations where they take one notion, or one line and use it to support their theology. Catholics on the other hand develop their theology based on an understanding of the entirety of scripture from the Old to the New Testament in conjunction with the Oral Tradition handed on by the Apostles through the magisterium. While we may use a single scripture to back up a thought process or to discuss some meaning here or there, that scripture can only be understand by taking all of Scripture and not just that one pericope/verse/quote.

The very fact that we don’t say things like “once saved, always saved”, “Scripture Alone,” “All you have to do is confess with your lips,” all of those require taking one section and ignoring another. We instead truly have a view of all of scripture as one cohesive whole… one verse cannot be understood without another. “saved by grace” for instance cannot be understood without James 2:24 that says faith without works is dead, etc.
Click to expand...
Then the argument that some Muslims cherry pick the peaceful verses out of the Koran could be refuted in the same way, right?

Using Hadiths and context, couldn’t they say this or that and it hold up to scrutiny?
 
Upgrade25 said:
I was watching a nondenominational apologetics outreach to Muslims to quench that doubt(Islam), then they pointed out that some Muslims take the verses they like and ignore the violent ones in the Koran.

For some reason, my mind told me that Catholics do this too. Such as the bit about justification, or one mediator, or creation, or any other countless examples of such things.

May you help?
Click to expand...
No, orthodox, practicing Catholics do not do this. However, I have seen many heterodox Catholics do this or ones who have not receive a good faith formation.

Also, I’ve seen MANY protestants do this as well. Baptist and “non-denominational” protestants have a tendency to focus on individual verses without taking all verses in the Bible into consideration. Also, these Christians have a tendency to focus on some Books more than others, and some even consider some Books more important than others.

Catholics on the other hand believe you have to take the entire Bible into consideration when understanding verses, and you also need to take into consideration ancient Jewish practices and the Scared Tradition passed on to us from the ancient Jews, Christ, and the Church Fathers.

God Bless
 
I would not call it cherry picking, but rather, certain interpretations are interpreted in certain ways that sort of ‘cater’ to our modern world, or better yet, ‘accommodate’ a modern society, Christians all have to live their lives in the secular world, we all have to work, pay bills, taxes, etc, abide by secular laws, etc etc. if various interpretations were not interpreted in the way they are, it would lead to a lot of problems for christians being able to live and maintain in a secular world.

I will use the ‘pay unto Caesar what is Caesars’ bible verse as an example, in one sense, we are told this means we are told we must obey secular tax laws and pay our share, but in situations where we know some of this money is being used for things that would go against Gods laws, it is interpreted in a way that we STILL must obey and pay…what if this verse is not literal, what if christians SHOULD be standing up more, refusing to obey certain things?

Im only using that verse an example, but Id say this happens more than we think, early christian leaders knew a faith as large as ours would have to be able to function and lead normal lives in the secular world, I just suspect some interpretations were written in ways that more or less accommodate the non-religious society. Hopefully I am getting my point across, hard to put into words what I actually feel on this…
 
mikekle said:
Im only using that verse an example, but Id say this happens more than we think, early christian leaders knew a faith as large as ours would have to be able to function and lead normal lives in the secular world, I just suspect some interpretations were written in ways that more or less accommodate the non-religious society. Hopefully I am getting my point across, hard to put into words what I actually feel on this…
Click to expand...
Your contention that early Church fathers and apostles came up with certain interpretations for societal convenience of believers doesn’t really hold up well when one considers that many Christians including the Apostles went willingly to their deaths at the hands of secular authority rather than profess other beliefs.

The true church would not be concerned with its followers conforming their faith around their lives but conforming their lives to their faith, this faith based upon the fulness of revelation and reason. It’s with that perspective that the Church interprets scripture and authoritatively speaks upon it.
 
Non-Catholics, including Eastern Orthodox, might say that the verse in Matthew 16:18: On this rock I will build my Church, etc., has been misinterpreted by Roman Catholics.
 
Tomdstone said:
Non-Catholics, including Eastern Orthodox, might say that the verse in Matthew 16:18: On this rock I will build my Church, etc., has been misinterpreted by Roman Catholics.
Click to expand...
Of course. Because if you agree with the Catholics on our understanding of that verse, then it becomes harder to remain non-Catholic.

Authority of the Pope is the root of almost all schism.
 
One has to remember that Catholicism is not a religion based on the Bible or, more specifically the New Testament. It is the other way around. Our relgion is based on a Person, Jesus Christ, and what he taught us. Apostles and other faithful disciples wrote the books that became Scripture, and they are thus the product of the faith that shaped them.

In other words, our religion came first. The New Testament came from our religion. The same thing goes for the Old Testament and Judaism. The Jewish religion came first, and faithful Jews were inspired to write the Scriptures. The first Christians were Jews. Neither faith based it’s beliefs on the Bible, but rather the Bible reflects the beliefs and relgious practices of these people and their faith. They had a religion and belief first, and this moved them to write about what they already believed.

Therefore Catholics read and interpret the Bible not in a vacuum but in the context of the faith that inspired it. Just like you can’t read the Old Tetament outside the context of Jewish history and religion, you can’t read the New Testament that way either. You either read the Bible in the context of the traditions that shaped it or ignore them and risk misunderstanding.

Because of this you can neither cherry-pick or blindly apply everything uniformly. Some texts will apply in certain ways and for certain times but others will not. The Scriptures are products of a religious tradition and as such a product that same faith is the necessary ingredient to determine their true meaning.
 
I have seen many instances in study bibles (Catholic,Prot,Jewish) where the exegete grabs a verse or portion of a verse and runs with it. I think it’s quite common.

The standard imposed by Vatican II in Verbum Dei is that ultimately the exegete has to take into consider everything that the Church has taught on a matter. That’s a tall order, and I don’t think we have an equivalent of a Jewish Talmud where all the various views are compiled for study in one place.

But, I think that quoting out of context is quite common and has been so from the beginning.

And, then reading into scripture has a long pedigree in Jewish and Christian thought. And that is not just blatantly invalid, as quite a lot of scripture has, so to speak, been left to humanity to decipher, with fear and trembing.
 
sirach2v4 said:
I have seen many instances in study bibles (Catholic,Prot,Jewish) where the exegete grabs a verse or portion of a verse and runs with it. I think it’s quite common.

The standard imposed by Vatican II in Verbum Dei is that ultimately the exegete has to take into consider everything that the Church has taught on a matter. That’s a tall order, and I don’t think we have an equivalent of a Jewish Talmud where all the various views are compiled for study in one place.

But, I think that quoting out of context is quite common and has been so from the beginning.

And, then reading into scripture has a long pedigree in Jewish and Christian thought. And that is not just blatantly invalid, as quite a lot of scripture has, so to speak, been left to humanity to decipher, with fear and trembing.
Click to expand...
I certainly have seen exegesis done quite well (and some done quite poorly), in many church and synagogue settings. But taking a portion of Scripture and playing with it, pulling in one or more interpretations isn’t cherry picking, is it?

To me, cherry picking is using the same passages over and over and over, as the total sum of one’s belief system. And then, when other passages are used to expand or even negate the ‘pickings’, the head is turned away.

OR. The hard sayings. What do we do with those? Most are conveniently put aside.

We all choose our Scriptural passages selectively, both individually and in our faith communities. And we interpret them for our own purpose.

That’s just the way we do it.
 
Upgrade25 said:
Then the argument that some Muslims cherry pick the peaceful verses out of the Koran could be refuted in the same way, right?

Using Hadiths and context, couldn’t they say this or that and it hold up to scrutiny?
Click to expand...
The better educated ones would know that the peaceful verses has been abrogated by more aggressive ones. The questions posed by non-Muslims would be to ask them which verses are still in operation and which ones has gone away. Why were those peaceful verses abrogated etc. Why were so many verses abrogated and so on.

For Scriptures, the explanation that is in sync with all other verses is the superior one. Cherry pickers tend to ignore all other verses which may contradict the position they have taken up. God doesn’t contradict himself.
 
Here is a very beautiful post on BPS Lay Ministry blog on reading scripture in the Spirit as a Catholic christian.
The Catholic Church has gone to great trouble to ensure Peter fulfills the command given to him, to steward the flock of Jesus and ensure they’re fed with good pasture John 21:17 within the Church built to
withstand the gates of hell through all time* Mt 16:18*.
Holy Spirit came to teach all truth and to safeguard what Christ already taught John 16:13
The Catholic church therefore interprates each section in light to the whole and if there is a problem with chery-picking, then maybe with individuals, in our private application of scripture.Not the Church in her magisterial teaching.I’ve never encountered a real contradiction so far. Here is the link again
 
AndreaDorrie said:
One has to remember that Catholicism is not a religion based on the Bible or, more specifically the New Testament. It is the other way around. Our relgion is based on a Person, Jesus Christ, and what he taught us. Apostles and other faithful disciples wrote the books that became Scripture, and they are thus the product of the faith that shaped them.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Upgrade25 said:
I was watching a nondenominational apologetics outreach to Muslims to quench that doubt(Islam), then they pointed out that some Muslims take the verses they like and ignore the violent ones in the Koran.

For some reason, my mind told me that Catholics do this too. Such as the bit about justification, or one mediator, or creation, or any other countless examples of such things.

May you help?
Click to expand...
It’s NOT the Catholic Church that does the cherry-picking. If an individual Catholic does it then they can be misled like many have been before. There are thousands of non-Catholic denominations that disagree with each other in cherry-picking what they want to believe and how to adapt it to what they want it to mean. If you truly understood Catholic teaching you would know it’s beauty and truth in understanding Sacred Scripture. Get some books, DVD’s etc.of Scott Hahn’s and you will see what I mean. He is a former protestant minister that was once very anti-Catholic and now is a very knowledgeable and faithful Catholic. God Bless. Memaw
 
Tomdstone said:
Non-Catholics, including Eastern Orthodox, might say that the verse in Matthew 16:18: On this rock I will build my Church, etc., has been misinterpreted by Roman Catholics.
Click to expand...
There is much more that points to Peter than just that verse.
 
Clergy are the only Catholic’s that can accurately interpret the readings in the bible.
They do a very good job -on Sunday’s during masss-so we as Catholic’s
have heard the interpretations there. Iow- we have the church’s authority behind us in this.
.

Sometimes however, I find myself in debate with a protestant or athiest who throws scripture after scripture at me to prove a point-or to use the bible as a tool to justify or excuse something. When this happens to me-yes, perhaps can cherry pick -and sometimes it is an interesting discussion.

But when in serious doubt, I discuss these scriptures with a priest in general conversation.

As you already know, it is dangerous to always assign personal meaning to scriptures as other religions perhaps do. I was reminded of this recently
😊
 
mommy_k said:
Clergy are the only Catholic’s that can accurately interpret the readings in the bible.
They do a very good job -on Sunday’s during masss-so we as Catholic’s
have heard the interpretations there. Iow- we have the church’s authority behind us in this.
.

Sometimes however, I find myself in debate with a protestant or athiest who throws scripture after scripture at me to prove a point-or to use the bible as a tool to justify or excuse something. When this happens to me-yes, perhaps can cherry pick -and sometimes it is an interesting discussion.

But when in serious doubt, I discuss these scriptures with a priest in general conversation.

As you already know, it is dangerous to always assign personal meaning to scriptures as other religions perhaps do. I was reminded of this recently
😊
Click to expand...
I like to describe the Church’s understanding of the Sacred Scriptures like a glove and hand. The glove being the Old Testament, (incomplete when not on the hand.) and the hand being the New Testament fitting perfectly in the Glove to make them complete. That is just what the Catholic Church does and the readings in the Holy Mass is a wonderful example of that. God Bless, Memaw
 
Upgrade25 said:
I was watching a nondenominational apologetics outreach to Muslims to quench that doubt(Islam), then they pointed out that some Muslims take the verses they like and ignore the violent ones in the Koran.

May you help?
Click to expand...
Look, I’m going to ask you this:

Why are you doing this to yourself? You know you have doubts, and yet you endanger your faith by look at such material. Are you not aware that this is a sin against the first commandment?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top